Wind Power?

Some politicians and newspaper editors - illiterates all - propose wind power as a substitute for coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear based electricity. Here's where reality intrudes.

... physicist Howard Hayden has commented:

“Power from wind varies dramatically with wind speed, as anybody can tell by merely looking at the power curves from any turbine manufacturer on the planet. If the wind speed increases from 10 mph to 20 mph, the power increases by a cool factor of eight. If the wind speed drops from 20 mph to 10 mph, the power it produces drops by 87.5%. Such variations are at odds with the necessity of keeping the grid voltage constant within a few percent, and the frequency constant within 0.03%. In the electricity business, stability is the key ingredient”

Not experienced in physical issues, some politicians might readily endorse schemes where the instability is hidden; their failure to perceive the fatal limitation of wind power is one such example.

Climate change alarmists portray a catastrophic rise in sea level as one of the chief dangers of global warming. They draw pictures of the Statue of Liberty up to her chest in water, and so on. I doubt whether many people actually believe these dire predictions, however. If they did, prices for oceanfront property would be collapsing. That isn’t happening, which suggests that a lot of people pay lip service to global warming hysteria who don’t actually think it has any scientific basis.If they don’t believe it, they’re right. Here, as in so many instances, global warming alarmism is built on a skinny foundation of truth. Sea level is indeed rising, as it has been for something like 15,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. At one time, sea level rose rapidly, as the giant glaciers that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere melted. For the last 6,000 years, the melting and consequent sea level rise has been relatively constant and modest:

Geophysicist Dennis Hadke compared the claim of drastic sea level rise with what is actually occurring in ten coastal cities with long and reliable records of rise (from tidal gages). He calculates linear fits, regression lines, for each of the ten cities. Not surprisingly for TWTW readers, he finds:

There has been no dramatic and consistent sea-level rise in the past century, and projections show no dramatic rise is likely to occur in the coming century.

There is no correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and sea-level rise.

The work of Hadke concurs with retired NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller discussed in the January 28 TWTW. Wysmuller explored the correlation between CO2 and sea level rise and found no measurable linkage between Sea Level and CO2. As Wysmuller stated:

For the past 2,000 years, Sea Level rise was unchangingly linear, increasing between 1 & 1.5 mm/yr. The maximum rise is about 6 inches per century. This has continued for the past 135 years, even though CO2 concentrations have increased by 38%.

It must be remembered that in addition to the ocean rising gradually–very gradually–as ice continues to melt, slowly, the Earth also subsides. But subsidence is local, depending on soil conditions in a particular place. Cities that are built partly on landfills, like Miami, are especially likely to sink. When you read in the newspapers about alarming conditions caused by rapidly rising sea levels, it is almost certain that what is mostly happening is that the land is subsiding.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Glenn Greenwald begins with the fake news that the Russians hacked 21 state electoral systems ...

So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its election systems targeted by Russian hackers

and then goes on.

That’s how the Russia narrative is constantly “reported,” and it’s the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It’s because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.

No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that is proffered, are accusations that impugn one’s patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).

Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?

So, Trump war right about being wiretapped.

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

The story in the UK Telegraph is correct is asserting that the "climate models" are wrong, but falls into the trap of assuming that burning carbon fuels is causing global warming. Not only are the models wrong, but the basic premise is wrong. The earth's climate is always changing but man has nothing to do with it. We could not change the climate if we wanted to and could not stop the climate from changing if we tried. Those are forces beyond our puny might: the power of the sun and the might of the earth's natural evolution is nothing we can affect at this stage of our development.

Monday, September 18, 2017

The Brooke Baldwin mammary mess is just another example of how liberals leverage their ability to create new rules out of thin air as a means of asserting their power over us normals. What was A-OK yesterday is now forbidden, and what was forbidden yesterday is now mandatory. Their goal is to keep our heads spinning and paralyze us with fear, like nearsighted corporals caught in a minefield and terrified that if we take one wrong step we will detonate a concealed wrongthink booby-trap. They want us living in fear of their fussy wrath, and that is precisely why it is so important for us to keep abreast of pseudo-scandals like this so we can nip these libfascists' schemes in the bud and deny them the ability to rack up yet another victory in the culture war.

Remember this?

Scott Shane of the Charity Case NY Times covers the breaking news from Twin Falls Idaho, where Russian interference led to a four person rally in a state Trump won by 31%. Mr. Shane omits the "four person" detail, which admittedly is based on a Facebook guess, not crowd photographs or even a photo of a picnic bench with four bridge players.

Malcontents and deviants are always attracted to radical movements, and sociopathic personalities are by no means rare among the leaders of such movements, as any student of Joseph Stalin’s career must recognize.

Like most other famous feminists, Kate Millett never had children, so that her death is mourned only by her lesbian partner and by elderly comrades in the movement of which she was once “high priestess.” Most young feminists have little knowledge of the true history of their movement and, not knowing history, they are doomed to repeat it.

Alternative facts

The next person who cites Kellyanne Conway's reference to "alternative facts" as an example of a lie is going to have my shoe in his ass.

Why is it so hard to understand that there are press “facts” and there are other facts that the press leaves out.

Tyler O'Neil writes an entire article about the real meaning of "1984" and appear oblivious to the fact that reality is NOT the media narrative.

Like the fact that when Antifa attacked Trump supporters at his rallies the press reported the “fact” that Trump’s rallies were violent, omitting the fact that the violence was all committed by Bernie and Hillary supporters.

There’s the fact that the rallies in Charlottesville involved “Nazis” - deluded jerks who could hold a convention in a phone booth but who actually marched peacefully - until they met an equally despicable gang of masked rioters (Antifa) and, because the police were told to stand down, the riot started.

There’s the “fact” of global warming and there’s the alternative fact that none of the global warming models match reality. Alternative facts are facts that the media, as they bring "1984" up to date, chooses to ignore.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

“Why haven’t we seen movement over either 38 or 2909 since the horrific events in Virginia?” Walters asked, noting the Republicans control the House and the Senate and both Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appear to be blocking bills advancing the right to keep and bear arms.

“You know what?” Massie replied, “The Speaker told me he didn’t think the timing was right. And I think this is the exact timing to bring this bill.”

Of course it is. What a disingenuous excuse. When will the timing be better?

Trump does what people want. Outrage ensues.

Trump made a deal with Democrats to fund hurricane disaster relief and raise the debt ceiling. “Never Trumpers” of every Party and label are shocked. He is being called names by his enemies and his supporters are accused of being duped by a Democrat in disguise.

But step back for a moment and ignore, if you can, all the rabid voices. Ask yourself what so many people who are not particularly partisan have asked of politicians in Washington. They want to see politicians get along and do things for the common good.

So here we have it. Money has been appropriated for disaster relief. The debt ceiling has been raised. It’s a two-fer. Who, except for partisans, want to see Congress tied up in gridlock, fail to pass disaster aid and wrangle until the very last moment in that perennial fight over raising the debt ceiling?

You know the debt ceiling will be raised; it always is. The only question is whether the Republicans will be accused of shutting down the government. The news stories were already written about the “horror” of the Government defaulting on the national debt. Now the Democrats and the Press – but I repeat myself – will have to put their stories and faux outrage back in the pending file for the next time this issue comes up. The best thing that could happen with the debt ceiling is to remove it. Get rid of an issue that only allows politicians to pretend to care, to posture and preen in a Kabuki theater that has gotten so old it’s grown a beard.

Stop it already. We know you’re lying. Clear the decks for issues that matter. Grow up.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

ProPublica is a fraud. If the people who work there are “journalists,” I’m an NBA first-round draft pick. ProPublica is run by a charlatan who exemplifies everything that’s bad about his supposed profession. It’s a foul enterprise run by foul people.

A “journalistic institution” funded by Democrat billionaires tried to shutter a publishing house (one that even some of its harshest critics agree is beneficial). This would be big news if the world of American journalism were populated by actual investigative reporters, rather than sock puppets dancing at the end of the strings that accompany their big fat welfare checks.

The attack by Silicon Valley on anyone who disagrees is getting into high gear.

Washington, DC - Pointing to the devastating weekend Indian Ocean tsunami that left over 24,000 dead, an international blue ribbon committee of climatologists and ecoscientists today issued a stark warning that man-made pollutants have increasingly "make water spirits angry."

While most empirical evidence supports the theory of wrathful whale-tail slappings, some scientists are exploring alternative hypotheses for the weekend tsunami. Ecobiologist Jane Geary of UC Santa Cruz points to mounting evidence that the ocean spirit-world may have been driven to gastrointestinal rage by gas-guzzling SUVs.

"Wheels of thunder-wagons wake up Big Earth Spirit-Mother, make to crazy tingle in hairy child-place. She now go to water lair of Tai-Waku, make big angry love on tectonic plate," said Novak. "Big Earth Spirit-Mother say, 'if ocean rocking, don't come a-knocking.'"

Although they disagree on the precise causes of the wrathful spirit world, scientists were largely unanimous in recommending immediate global regulatory action. Remedial steps suggested in the report include ratification of the Kyoto treaty, elimination of automobiles, volcanic altars for virgin sacrifices, creation of a sustainable urine-based economy, and improved faculty dental benefits.

Erlich, whose 1978 best seller "Ice Time Come Soon" is widely credited with saving millions of lives by warning of the massive age of glaciation that threatened Earth during the 1980s, said inaction might anger the spirit world further.

"Me not know when Tai-Waku make wrath again," said Erlich. "Me need more grant money."

Saturday, September 09, 2017

Perhaps the least useful bit of meteorological commentary these last 24 hours was that of the actress Jennifer Lawrence, who suggested Irma was "Mother Nature's rage" at America voting for Trump. It's always striking how parochial these global celebrities are:

Ninety-five per cent of Barbudan structures have been destroyed, so presumably Mother Nature hates Barbuda even more than Trump.

Two-thirds of Saint Martin, a French territory, has been destroyed, so presumably Mother Nature hates France for not only signing the Paris Climate Accord but hosting the post-signing banquet.

Richard Branson's Necker Island has been utterly devastated and his home destroyed, so presumably Mother Nature hates Sir Richard for his "Virgin Earth Challenge" and longtime dedicated leadership on climate change.

Robert De Niro's luxury Caribbean resort has been wiped out, so presumably Mother Nature hates Hollywood celebrities and their grotesque obscene wealth even more than it hates Trump and Trump Tower.

Alternatively: Mother Nature does not know who Jennifer Lawrence is and is completely indifferent to her dreary modish predictable obsessions. Evidently Miss Lawrence's brain gave every last cell in there the order to evacuate some time ago, and the joint is completely deserted now.

I am rather proud of admitting that I have no idea who Jennifer Lawrence is and if I were to meet her on the street I would not recognize her. It puts me one up on the idiots who do.

Friday, September 08, 2017

The sale of the New York Daily News for a dollar isn't the death of the sleazy leftist tabloid. It died a while back.

Today, the Daily News is best known for its trolling front pages. That and bizarre trolling hate pieces from a staff of repurposed and unqualified trash like Linda Stasi, a former Post movie critic turned hate spewing bigot, and sportswriter Mike Lupica, trying to churn out political commentary.

Stasi summoned a boycott of the already failing paper when she blamed one of the victims of the Muslim terror attack in San Bernardino because he was a Republican. Lupica has no idea when the Constitution was written.

The Daily News had once been a powerhouse. But as the end approached, it lacked any actual talent. And Linda Stasi and Mike Lupica's rage tantrums, the trolling covers, couldn't compensate.

Like Newsweek, it sold for a buck, and like Newsweek it tried to survive on trolling covers.

And then there was the structural problem.

The Daily News was a tabloid. Tabloids play to the working class. But as the Dems became a leftist elite, they no longer spoke the same language. And the Daily News was out to sea.

The previous editor, Jim Rich, had been resisting pressure from management to soften the Trump covers, people familiar with the matter said. He was told they were diminishing an already much diminished print subscriber base, these people said, particularly among blue-collar readers in certain corners of New York’s outer boroughs, where Trump’s nationalistic populism apparently resonates in a way that is anathema to the city’s cosmopolitan districts and immigrant enclaves...

Now, many News staffers and alumni feel like the air has been sucked out of the room, and they are perhaps coming to terms with the notion that Trump is more popular with segments of their readership than they thought, even in deep blue New York.

The Daily News had no base left. Its hate covers were popular with progs who didn't buy or read the paper. And so here we are. And the decline of the left-wing dead tree media rolls on.

Like many conservative Catholics, I so look forward to Rose pressuring Catholic Democrats on their abortion-on-demand policies in a similar way. In fact, isn’t it fair to ask why this kind of questioning hasn’t already taken place between the numerous exchanges between Rose and the California Democrat? Strangely, I can’t seem to find it. In the transcript of an interview in 2010, abortion is only raised by Pelosi while talking about backlash on Obamacare. No follow-up from Rose.

The media imagine that President Trump's deficiencies are an argument for not taking his positions seriously. Oh no -- it's just the reverse. The fact that Trump's supporters implacably stick by him, through every horror, proves they are willing to put up with any lunacy if it means getting that agenda.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Time to break up the tech industry monopolies. The Trump administration is the right vehicle for this. Read the whole thing.

In terms of stock market value, the top five companies worldwide are the technology giants Apple, Alphabet (Google’s corporate parent), Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. In the technology industry, these firms—although hardly interchangeable—are the new Robber Barons.

Apple’s famously based its business model on a “closed platform,” compelling users to accede to its vertical integration of software, parts, apps, and iTunes inventory. Amazon, with sales exceeding its 12 largest online competitors combined, captures 46 percent of all online shopping. Aggressive pricing—to the extent of consistently sacrificing profitability—and sharp competitive practices such as below-cost pricing of ebooks to promote its Kindle sales have enabled Amazon to swamp its competitors in an expanding array of product lines.

Regardless of profitability, investors value these firms primarily because of their sheer scale—market dominance within the relevant segments. Uber and Tesla, each with a market capitalization exceeding General Motors, have never earned even a single penny of profit, defying traditional models of valuation. Investors presumably anticipate that monopoly (or near-monopoly) status will eventually yield monopoly profits.

And how have the new Robber Barons been behaving with their sky-high market valuations, overwhelming market shares, and hoards of cash? In a word, poorly. If actions were words, they would be parroting Vanderbilt’s infamous declaration.

Amid great controversy, Google summarily fired an engineer, James Damore, for thoughtfully questioning the assumptions of the company’s diversity policies. More recently, Google appeared to direct the dismissal of a scholar from the New America Foundation, a progressive Washington think tank backed by Google, for praising fines levied against the company by European regulators for antitrust violations. These are the actions of an intolerant bully.

In our digital world, the Internet and websites have become the indispensable medium for both commerce and political expression, serving as the modern equivalent of the printing press, Yellow Pages, mail delivery, checking account, and public library—combined. Companies servicing the Internet—and especially search engines—are de facto public utilities, with an obligation to operate fairly, responsibly, and without viewpoint discrimination. Unfortunately, the new Robber Barons have fallen appallingly short of this ideal.

For example, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have been accused of censoring users’ posts; Google (through its ad placement service) has bullied conservative websites to alter their content or face financial retribution; online payment facilitator PayPal and domain administrator GoDaddy have banished or withdrawn funding services for websites whose content they disapprove of; and Google has reportedly skewed search results to omit references objectionable to certain Islamic organizations.

Most ominously of all, as reported by Paula Bolyard in PJ Media, Google is working with a coalition of liberal groups—including the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center—to monitor conservative websites for “hate events.” In reality, they’re policing expression of views they find disagreeable, such as opposition to the LGBT agenda, criticism of radical Islam, or support for more stringent immigration controls. The goal is to blacklist “offensive” sites, smear them as “hate groups,” and ultimately to deny them access to digital advertisers, online donations, domain registrars, or similar tech support necessary for sites to function. In other words, Google is conspiring with Left-wing activists to suppress their political opponents.

‘Regulate Them Into Submission’

With the unprecedented ability to control the content and operation of websites, a handful of tech companies wield greater power than governments do, with little transparency and no accountability. This astonishing concentration of power should concern all citizens, regardless of political persuasion. Yet, with a few exceptions, liberals have been strangely quiet. The reason is obvious: The Left has given the new Robber Barons a pass, because they share a Progressive political agenda, as reflected by Apple’s $1 million donation to the SPLC, and the hyper-partisan direction of the Washington Post since its purchase by Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

Should conservatives, blinded by their allegiance to the free market, condone this partisan perfidy? Increasingly, commentators on the Right recommend treating Silicon Valley behemoths as the monopolies they are and, in Kurt Schlichter’s words, either break them up or “regulate them into submission.” President Theodore Roosevelt earned the nickname “trustbuster” for breaking up James J. Hill’s and J. P. Morgan’s notorious railroad monopoly, the Northern Securities Company. In the same vein, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should investigate the nefarious conduct of the new Robber Barons.

Silicon Valley’s leftist business leaders have a peculiar notion of “creative destruction”; rather than rendering prior paradigms obsolete, they apparently seek to eliminate free speech instead.

Facebook claims to reach more people than actually exist. Perhaps they're counting the dead, like the Democrats do in election voting.

Facebook inflates the number of people who can see the advertisements on its platform, a Pivotal Research Group analyst said in a note.

Facebook's Ads Manager claims a potential reach of 41 million 18- to 24-year olds and 60 million 25- to 34-year olds in the United States, whereas U.S. census data shows that last year there were a total of 31 million people between the ages of 18 and 24, and 45 million in the 25-34 age group, the analyst said.

Sunday, September 03, 2017

What happens to a country whose most important police force — and its key investigators — is no longer telling the truth to the citizens of that nation? Nothing good, I'm sure most would agree. There's almost no point in going through all the analogies to despotic regimes. Writers from George Orwell to Arthur Koestler have already done it for us.

But those analogies come immediately to mind following two revelations regarding our Federal Bureau of Investigation that surfaced this week. In one instance, the FBI refused to turn over documents regarding the Hillary Clinton emails because of -- wait for it -- "lack of public interest."

The head of the FBI Records Management Division wrote Ty Clevenger, a New York Attorney who filed the FOIA request in March 2016, to inform him that his request was being denied in late August.

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” the letter, obtained by Fox News, reads. “Therefore, records regarding your subject are withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions.

It's hard to imagine what was going on in the mind of Records Management Division head David M. Hardy when he wrote -- or was forced to write by some unknown superior -- such a risible lie, but things have only gotten worse from there. Now we learn that then FBI director James Comey may never have planned to find Clinton guilty in the first place.

While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Clinton was interviewed for several hours on July 2, just three days before Comey’s announcement.

Defenders of Comey insist this early draft exonerating Clinton is standard FBI practice, but, not surprisingly, none of them mention that a similar draft deeming Clinton culpable has not surfaced. One doubts it exists.

To millions of Americans, Hillary Clinton was as guilty as O.J. Simpson. You would have to be an imbecile not to think she didn't know she was doing something illegal secreting her professional emails as secretary of State on a private server hidden in a bathroom. And yet James Comey's ultimate decision on Clinton depended on her putative ignorance after literally decades of government service.

No wonder he vacillated so many times in his statements and actions. Only someone completely without conscience wouldn't have. And Comey should have a guilty conscience because it is now becoming increasingly clear he was looking for way to exonerate Clinton virtually no matter what. The famous Bill-Loretta tarmac meeting was an unnecessary embarrassment, as was Lynch instructing Comey to call the investigation a "matter." This was ultimately, as the Italian film goes, "The Investigation of a Citizen above Suspicion." That is why she was never interviewed under oath and so many of her subalterns were let off free or allowed to destroy records and negotiate the most outlandish requests that neutered the inquiry. That is why we have never seen the tens of thousands of erased and supposedly missing emails.

Meanwhile, the ongoing Mueller-Russia investigation is tied intimately to the FBI through the close relationship of former director Robert Mueller to his successor Comey with a steady stream of Clintonistas joining Mueller's team. How much more tarnished could it get?

Well, a lot more -- because it is the reputation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation itself that is even more dangerously tarnished. The conventional wisdom is that there are plenty of good, patriotic civil servants in the FBI -- and that is undoubtedly true -- but not since the days of J. Edgar Hoover has the organization's leadership been so suspect, their opaque decision-making process so fraught with defensive self-preservation and political bias. Sometimes, it seems the "G-men" spend far more time dodging FOIA requests -- redacting almost everything in sight, lest it be "misunderstood" by we in the great unwashed -- than in stopping crime. That may not be so, but the reasons for the perception are undeniable.

Something must be done and quickly. The latest revelations about Comey make the recusal of Mueller more urgent, but the overall situation is yet more severe. The FBI itself needs some form of investigation and reorganization. A true reform. Otherwise a huge percentage of the country will continue to distrust it and that distrust, pending the results of the closely tied Mueller-Russia inquiry, will only continue to grow. That is untenable in a democratic republic.

I see one logical solution to the dilemma Amazon has created: If the masses can afford environmentally friendly and cruelty-free food, then environmentally reckless and cruelty-full food must be priced high and sought after by the elite.

Former Whole Foods shoppers must now seek out expensive cuts of animal-welfare-ignored beef, fatty and guaranteed to come from a cow that was killed in a most merciless way. (Foodies will latch onto the belief that terror promotes better marbling.)

Overpriced produce will be stolen from local farmers and then sprayed with fresh pesticides. All baked goods will be rolled in nuts and injected with other potential allergens.

The new go-to store for food-related status signaling will be called Cruel Foods. Every customer who walks in will be shot in the face with a gluten cannon, and all purchases will be packed into used petroleum barrels that are carried to your car by underpaid orphaned baby seals.

It didn't have to be this way. But Amazon is taking away the one thing Whole Foods shoppers loved most — prohibitively expensive food that made them feel morally superior.

So now the tables must turn. Much like heads will turn when you open up an oil-caked barrel from Cruel Foods and pull out an expensive and uniquely loathsome lunch — poached salmon farmed by drunkards and beaten to death with a loaf of week-old Wonder Bread.

It will taste terrible and break the bank. But when, once-proud Whole Foods shoppers, has that ever mattered?

Friday, September 01, 2017

It is time to call out Google for what it is: a monopolist in search, video, maps and browser, and a thin-skinned tyrant when it comes to ideas.

The imperial overreach of Google in trying to shut down a group of five researchers proves the point that the initial release from Open Markets was trying to make: When companies get too much power, they become a threat to democratic free speech and to the liberty of citizens at large.

In 1948, in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Columbia Steel Co., Justice William O. Douglas explained that the traditional philosophy of American antitrust law is that “all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy … should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men.”

Google is forming into a government of itself, and it seems incapable of even seeing its own overreach. We, as citizens, must respond in two ways. First, support the brave researchers and journalists who stand up to overreaching power; and second, support traditional antimonopoly laws that will allow us to have great, innovative companies — but not allow them to govern us.

Google’s actions forced the Open Markets team to leave New America. But, thankfully, it did not succeed in silencing them entirely. Open Markets will continue on as a separate organization, which I will chair. Their work exposing corporate monopolies and advocating for regulation is more important than ever. Google shows us why.

The 22-year-old man suspected of shooting five middle-aged white men since last year — including four on south Kansas City walking trails — threatened in 2014 to shoot up a school and “kill all white people,” according to court records.

Fredrick Demond Scott, who was charged Tuesday in two killings and named as a suspect in three more, made those statements in January 2014 at Center Alternative School, as documented in a municipal citation for harassment.